Talk:Star Trek (film)/Ten Forward
On this page, we will discuss how and where to add information from the upcoming after its release. During the site lockdown, preliminary discussion results from a specific, open IRC channel may be added here. After the lockdown, full discussion will continue here. See: *Forum:Star Trek (film) - Removing spoiler restrictions / Site lockdown for a discussion of this. *Memory Alpha:Announcements/Star Trek release announcement for the official announcement resulting from that. *Forum:Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (pre-release discussion) for pre-release discussions of the same topic. -- Cid Highwind 10:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) IRC discussion May 7 Participants: User:Jörg, User:Cid Highwind, later User:Tim Thomason, User:Bp, User:Shran, BCSWowbagger, User:ZenMondo *Jörg states that items just being "namedropped" could just be added to existing articles, while separate articles should be created for clearly incompatible uses (citing Delta Vega as an example). Cid thinks that merging info from different timelines into one article may be more complicated than having two separate articles. *Jörg thinks we'll need clear identifiers for the different timelines (example identifiers below). Cid agrees, and suggests to additionally identify the timeline an article belongs to by some sort of page icon or graphic. Jörg likes the idea. *Identifiers: "(alternate)" is considered too generic. Brainstormed other terms include "Narada", "Nero", "Red Matter", "Kelvin", "2233 split". Jörgs suggestion of "Kelvin Destruction timeline", abbreviated for article qualifiers as "(KD)" is the best idea we can come up for the moment. ** Bp joining in later suggested using "(alternate)" or "(Abramsverse)" ** BCSWowbagger later "voted" for separating pages responsibly. He cited Natasha Yar (from ) as a special case, due to her being a "tiny character," but Shran pointed out that the same was true for Hikaru Sulu and Nyota Uhura. *Joining later, Tim suggests to qualify Delta Vega articles by (Vulcan system) and (galactic barrier). However, this tells nothing about the timeline the planets are from. Each one may not exist in the "other" one. *Cid discussed adding a special qualifier bar at the top of the screen (here). This still needs to be updated for all skins. *Shran later joined in and expressed his wish to hug the writers of Star Trek. *There was some discussion regarding the age of Pavel Chekov (17 in 2258-set ; 22 in 2267-set ). Shran and Tim agreed that the events of the alternate timeline may have caused a different conception time, and since he existed entirely in the alternate timeline, it had no effect on the original universe. *Tim and BCSWowbagger disagreed on whether the reference to "Admiral Archer's prized beagle" should be Porthos, due to the time of the incident. *Shran and Tim agreed that images known or apparently taken from bootlegged sources shouldn't be used on the site, whereas ZenMondo believed that any screencaps from the film should be accepted. Additional comments :I'm on my way to a theater right now, so I'm not taking the time to log in to IRC -- one thought though, there was, in "Where No Man...", a sign in the set decoration that identified the TOS station as being on planet "Delta-Vega". Perhaps we should use that hyphenated name for the TOS planet? -- Captain MKB 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) ::My disambiguant vote goes to "Red matter reality" or "Nero's timeline", but neither lends itself to a catchy abbreviation. -- Captain MKB 02:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :::This is a very difficult decision. Characters like Uhura (soon to by at "Nyota Uhura") and Hikaru Sulu would definitely benefit from additional info to expand their articles, but pages that are already long, like James T. Kirk and Spock, would just be made even longer. I don't supposed we can have movie info for long page characters on separate pages, and put movie info for the shorter pages in those pages, could we? (Not sure if that made sense, but there you go.) As for a qualifier, how about "Kelvin Timeline" (or KT) or just "Timeline B"? --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)--From Andoria with Love 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree the timeline should rather be "Kelvin timeline" than "red matter timeline" or "Nero timeline", as the destruction of said ship changed everything. Nero and red matter will be forgotten in the next movie, the fact that Kirk's Dad died aboard the ship, crewmembers on that ship first saw Romulans (no more "Balance of terror") and Pike writing his thesis about George Kirk and the Kelvin will still be relevant in the netx movie(s). Hell, even the fact that there are salt shakers in the shape of the USS Kelvin show, that it's pretty significant. --Jörg 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC) May 8 Participants: User:Cid Highwind, User:ZenMondo, Bacon, Samy_M, User:Tim Thomason, User:Majorthomme, willyum Three points have been brought up by Cid, in reply to comments on this page: #''"Nyota Uhura" - we technically don't know that, as the new Uhura was born in the separate timeline already'' - we should be very cautious when adding "new timeline" stuff to "old timeline" articles! #''"Nero timeline" (or any N*** timeline) would have the nice side effect of being abbreviated as "NT". Which, in turn, could have a secondary meaning of "new timeline"'' - We can add article title qualifiers like "(NT)" to new article, which is pretty short. On the page, we can then qualify this (using a template) as "Nero timeline". #''i updated the "qualifier bar" somewhat. both graphically, and on the script side to work with monobook'' - the link has already been posted above. If this meets consensus, feel free to grab everything necessary from MA/eo and add it here. You can see in the RC there which pages I changed. If we use this, we could also adopt the design for other "qualifiers", such as realworld, or mirror! Not much discussion about that follows. However, ZenMondo likes the "Nero/new timeline" moniker, while Bacon suggests "vector timeline". Random thoughts brought up later (paraphrased, not actual cites): *Cid: We should make sure to ridicule N*kia as much as possible, on our now-necessary page about them. We shouldn't be a part of that stupid product placement scheme. *ZenMondo: A redirect from "Spock Prime" to Spock is in order. *ZenMondo: Since Winona was in labor before the timeline split occured, shouldn't Kirk's birthplace be changed from Iowa to USS Kelvin? **Cid: Would be speculation to do that, an early birth might have been triggered by stress during the attack, and Kirk otherwise born on Earth. ***ZenMondo: However, check if birthplace:Iowa was really stated as fact, and remove otherwise. --Cid Highwind 11:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :While I like the "NT" distinction, it may not be so appropriate for subsequent movies/other productions set in the alternate timeline as, while the timeline would be featured, Nero will probably not return as a central villian! --Defiant 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ::I like "Nero's timeline" better than "Nero timeline" (note possessive) for that reason. Even though Nero has passed on and won't return as central villain, he was the driving force in disrupting history, thus he gets the "blame". Also, this has the aforementioned "NT" meaning "new timeline" or "new Trek". ::As to Nyota, I think it would be a little snobbish to think this might not be her canon first name. Nyota has been her non-canon first name in novels for decades, and it was obviously the film's way of acknowledging the long history of licensed literature in the original timeline. Just as Star Trek VI finally acknowledged Sulu's first name of "Hikaru" after it was used in novels for years and TAS finally acknowledged "Tiberius" as Kirk's middle name after it originated in a noncanon source. -- Captain MKB 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :::Full agreement here, see my post above. --Jörg 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah, here's no reason why Uhura of the prime timeline cannot be named Nyota Uhura. Remember, these are the same characters as in the prime universe, they have just had different experiences. None of the other characters' names have changed at all (James Tiberius Kirk, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Andreivich Chekov, Montgomery Scott), so there's no reason to believe Uhura is any different. Besides, Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols have already stated her first name is Nyota, it just hasn't been revealed on-screen until now. As for Kirk's birthplace being changed, there is no need; for all we know, the Kelvin was on its way back to Earth when its sensors detected the black hole. Also, as Cid said, hightened stress might have caused an early birth. As for using "Nero's timeline" or "NT" as the qualifier... I'm okay with that, though I prefer using "NT" to mean "new timeline" rather than "Nero's timeline" (though that can be on of the alternate meanings, as can "new Trek"). I still think we can have some of the information on pre-existing pages, though. Uhura, for certain, needs an expansion. --From Andoria with Love 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :::::I have no problem with using Nyota on both articles, although we should definitely express the source and possible ambiguity on Uhura Prime's page. As for Kirk's birth, we should leave his Prime birthplace ambiguous, and simply state his mother was pregnant with him on the Kelvin. Let the readers wonder if he was born there or in Iowa (where he was "from" and probably grew up). I think right now we can safely use the "(NT)" qualifier after the lockdown and until or unless we come up with another solution.--Tim Thomason 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Bp thinks the qualifier should be "red matter timeline" or "RMT" since it is the red matter which creates the singularity which sends Nero back in time in the first place. I agree with this reasoning. He also believes that "Nero's timeline" is not appropriate since A.) Nero existed in the previous timeline, B.) the timeline doesn't belong to Nero, and C.) it's the red matter-created singularity which really alters events, not Nero's destruction of the Kelvin. I also agree with those reasonings. He also doesn't like the term "new timeline," though I personally don't have an issue with that term. So, to reiterate, bp likes red matter timeline/RMT but not Nero's timeline/new timeline/NT. I like red matter timeline/RMT and don't like Nero's timeline/NT, but I can live with new timeline/NT. And there you have it. :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :::::I support the direction this discussion is taking.--31dot 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ::::31dot, could you clarify? Where do you see this discussion going? Do you mean you like "NT" or "RMT" as a qualifier? Or are you just satisfied that we're aiming more towards creating separate articles rather than adding the info to the pre-existing pages? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :::::I apologize, I was in a rush before and should have been clearer. I think NT/new timeline is the best choice, though RMT doesn't bother me. That's more what I was referring to, though I agree with the way the pages thing is going(sep. pages where warranted) I also think assuming the "Prime" Uhura's first name is Nyota is reasonable.--31dot 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The following was added later in the day: * Samy_M suggested a more, out-of-universe approach. He suggested that the use of (2009) or (2009 timeline) as a disambiguation would solve the confusion caused by using in-universe monikers. Majorthomme agreed with this. * Tim disagreed with using out-of-universe disambiguates, stating their removal from Memory Alpha in the past. * Samy_M questioned if we should create separate articles for everything seen in the alternate portions of the film, such as phasers specifically. He believes that this would solve the questioning of what gets separate or not. willyum agreed to an extent, and Tim stated that it should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. --Tim Thomason 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Additional comments I just returned, it's about 2am here, and I'm probably going to miss out on most of the re-opening fun during the next few days due to other commitments. So, please bear with me while I leave the following two comments: #A personal one: I absolutely hate the moniker "Red matter timeline"! Sorry if anyone feels offended by this, but of all the different names that have been thrown around, this is easily the worst, sounding like something one might expect from a cheesy 50's sci-fi flick. Please, let's not go there, especially keeping in mind what someone said on IRC - whatever name we choose will, probably, be adopted by at least some part of the fandom. What I really like about the article qualifier "(NT)" is that there are so many different, but all fitting, interpretations of what it might mean: Nero's timeline, New timeline, New Trek, Narada-induced turnout ;) - everyone might find some interpretation he likes in those. #An "official" one: please keep in mind that this discussion so far has not been instead of a wider consensus on the wiki, but just in preparation of one. By all means, start writing articles in 4 hours - but please don't cite this page as absolutely disallowing one thing or making "official policy" another. Thank you, and have fun. -- Cid Highwind 00:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :Thoughts/suggestions in no particular order: :* Support moving the "original" Uhura to Nyota Uhura :* Support separating Delta Vega and Delta Vega :* "NT" sounds fine, but I guess this will be something that will be debated massively. :* Make it a rule that all "NT" characters get separated, regardless of original length. Just for simplicity; otherwise it will be a pain looking up who is separated and who is not (e.g. in memorable quotes). For all other articles, split on a case by case basis.– Cleanse 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::Red Matter Timeline or "Alternate Reality", and here is why: :::*The new timeline has to be able to be referenced in-universe. I'd like to see the first line of Cid's POV article on New Timeline. In-universe, what is the "new?" and what is the old? Certainly there is no "New Star Trek". :::*And how is it Nero's Timeline? He didn't cause it. He doesn't own it. He existed in both. It isn't his in any way, and after a few films, with other villains and events, are we going to still refer to it as Nero's? :::*Things went into the singularity and came out at different times. We don't actually know that the Nerada was the first thing through, or the earliest change to the timeline. The battle with the Kelvin may not have been the "first" change, maybe only the first big change. :::*The red-matter induced singularity caused the tunnel back in time, and split in the timeline. It makes more sense to call it after that. :::*Or, like DHorizon said, "alternate reality" is something they specifically referenced. The name alternate reality though is so generic, and not at all unique in Trek. It can, however, be described in an in-universe way since the characters have already done so. :::Anyway, "NT" meaning New Timeline, or New Trek, or Nero's Timeline is the worst option because it can't be referenced or written about in the correct POV. So my first choice is "Red Matter timeline," even just because it will be easy to replace when we think of something better, and far second choice is "alternate reality." --bp 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::::If it was called Nero's timeline, I can explain why it is Nero's "fault", as it were. His ship was the first to traverse back through time to 2233, and his decision to attack the Kelvin ultimately created the change. So it is his fault. Dave''Subspace Message'' 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)